Michigan offense actually better against stronger defenses

So, I keep hearing how the offense put up gawdy numbers against bad competition, but disappeared against good defenses and wondered if that was actually accurate. I took my numbers from my season long diary tracking yards gained by UMs offense.

With a small sample size (51+(5), 50-26(4), 25-(3)), it's tough for these numbers to be something majorly concrete, but it's interesting to see that UMs offense was more efficient against better defenses.

Well, sure, youth on offense will do that. That is exactly why I took yards gained and not offensive scoring. Using yards gained shows an offenses abiltiy to move the ball regardless of age, turnovers, etc...

about football is, though, that "offensive ability" is not independent of little things like "turnovers" and "age" - it's about putting points on the board. A young team should have more variability (sometimes losing to crap teams, sometimes beating good ones) instead of being consistently outclassed by good teams and marginally defeating bad ones.

I like how you equate offensive success to team success there. Didn't we put more points on wisconsin in a half than Michigan's put on them in a decade? Points or no points a young team will win when it has more points than the other team. Just a little football protip for you there.

Our offense has tons of potential, but I dont care how many yards we racked up..we consistantly could not score against good teams.

Against MSU we blamed it on unlucky int's Against Iowa it was fumbles and int's. Against PSU more or the same. Wisconsine we did absolutly nothing in the 1st half. Against OSU it was fumbles. Bottom line we havent scored mre then 10 points in the 1st half in any of those games..I dont care if we score when were down by more then 3 touchdowns.. it's meaningless. Against EVERY physical team we played we went down like a 2 dollar whore. Nothing you say can change that.

I'm not getting the rash of "it doesn't matter" replies. Either the only statistic that matters is the W-L column or we can factor other knowledge, like that provided here, when gauging how good or bad a team is or how much progress has been achieved or whether the offense has "disappeared" when facing better defenses. All this "but they put up less points" junk is anti-intellectual and almost beside the point. We know. 'Kay? Moving the ball does mean something, if it's not the most important thing.

.......but little things like the youthful mistakes killing drives prevents points from being scored. At times, against every team we've played this year, our offense moved the ball with ease, including against some very highly rated defenses. Looking back at the things that stopped many of those drives from scoring points, the mistakes seen from young players were more prominent than good defensive plays from the opposition. Case in point, the two first half drives against MSU that ended in endzone picks. Those throws were more a case of Denard forcing a throw to a wide open WR than the defensive player making a great play.

Variability is more likely to effect scoring than it is total offense.

Why? Because, in general, you need to string several plays together in order to score (unless you're Denard). You can have 5 positive plays in a row and then one negative play (turnover, missed field goal, etc.) and you don't score.

So, the numbers unsurprisingly show that we had less yards against better defenses. What is the big surprise? That the ratio of our yards against our opponents average is higher for better defenses than worse defenses? I think you're really stretching. Might want to step away from the stats for a second.

In any case, those numbers are certainly skewed by our performance against Illinois, and outlier even before you factor in the extra 75 yards we got in overtime.

So against bottom 50 teams we scored 14.6 points per game more than our opponents' average, and against top 25 teams we scored 4.6 points per game more than our opponents' average. Doesn't look as great if you look at numbers rather than percentages.

This is a clear case of cherrypicking stats in an effort to prove a preconceived point. It's silly.

That's why they are percentages. Scoring 60 against a Bowling Green team that gives up 30 points a game is similar to scoring 28 against a Wisconsin team that gives up 14. Points are harder to come by against these teams. Pecentages are neat like that.

Actually, no its not. Scoring 30 points more than Bowling Green's average is not equivalent of scoring 14 points more than Wisconsin's. Which is why no one other than the OP has used this metric (percentage of points scored versus respective opponents average) in assessing a team's performance in this way.

I understand the concept of "percentages", but the percentages OP is using simply don't prove anything meaningful here.

Apparently you do not understand percentages, regardless of what you say. Scoring on Wisconsin is more difficult than scoring on Bowling Green, and if we're looking at exceeding averages, percentages are a good way to do it.

You're right, you understand percentages better than I do. The fact that we scored 4.6 more points per game than opponents' average against top 25 defense, and 14.6 more points per game than opponents' average against other defenses, proves, in OP's word, that our "offense is actually better against stronger defenses" than weaker ones. That I think these metrics (which no one else in the history of sports statistics have ever utilized) are not helpful shows that I don't understand percentages, fractions, or long divisions.

Agree that OP's title is a stretch. But his math is sound. And it does tell us about the potential of this offense and it gives insight into what's wrong with it.

Disagree on your version of %'s. I'm assuming you grasp this, but the base is completely different for the 4.6 pts vs. 14.6 pts.

The problem I have with a straight pts. analysis is that it tells you WHAT the problem is but it tells you nothing of the WHY. That's where these "crazy metrics" come in handy. Some of us want to understand WHY before reacting to the WHAT...

...we averaged 6.8 points in the first half of our games against MSU, Iowa, PSU, Wisconsin and OSU. It's a lot easier to put up yards and points when the opposition is trying to not give up a big play.

I don't think you can really say MSU was in a prevent defense when UM was gaining their yards. Denard and company were moving the ball quite well the first half. UM gained 263 yards the first half of that game and only came away with 10 points.

If Iowa was in prevent and not trying to give up a big play, they sure did a bad job of that. UM had 5 plays of 15 yards or more in the second half. UM still gained 200 yards of offense in the first half and had an INT and a missed FG. If you ask me, I just think UMs playcalling became more aggressive.

Same with OSU. UM gained 235 yards of offense in the first half on a defense that averaged 241 yards given up per game.

What you are pointing out is not without merit, but as has been mentioned before the objective is to put points on the board. It is sad that we are hanging our hats on the fact that we gained better than average yards against good defenses. We didn't win the games or even come close losing by an average of 17 points in those five games. Points and when they are scored are much more important than yards gained.

Didn't say they were top 25. That just shows the numbers for the 50-25 defenses are skewed -- taking Illinois out of the equation, the ratio of our yards versus opponent's average is higher for bottom 50 teams than for teams 50-25, which undermines your point.

In any case, the three groupings you chose are arbitrary (why not below 60, 40-60, 20-40, etc), as is the very idea of judging offensive performance by ratio of yards compared to opponents' average yards given up. I just don't think this proves anything.

So, you want me take take part of the equation out because UM had a strong day offensively? Should I also take the Iowa game out too? I might as well remove the Purdue game too because the rain effected both offenses.

Actually, if you take away UMs effect on Illinois' average they are at 309 yds/game, and would be the 14th ranked defense, so the top 25 section get skewed even more towards this offense being better against top defenses.

Well, yes, outliers are typically removed from the equation in statistical analyses. Sure, take Purdue out too. In any case, these numbers are just not statistically relevant, and even if they were don't prove anything.

Outliers are commonly removed from statistical analysis but not typically removed. There is no widely accepted method to remove outliers. Usually they are so far outside the rest of the data that it is considered an error. To remove them just because they are outliers with such a small sample size is, what The Wire taught me is called, juking the stats.

I think the Illinois game is the only consideration in the extreme value vs outlier argument but it's probably extreme value given our offenses propensity to put up yards on anybody.

The Illinois game isn't as much of an outlier as you are suggesting. UMs offense is gaining, on average for the season, at 147% of their opponents defense. The lllinois game is at 194%, while the MSU game is at 112%. Taking the "outliers" out, UM is still gaining at 154% on the top 25 group, 7% above the season average.

If this were remotely true, then we would have been winning against OSU after the first quarter.

If this were remotely true, we wouldn't have had 3 turnovers yesterday.

If this were remotely true, then even with our horrible defense no team would have gained greater than a 7 point lead on us at any given time this season.

If this were remotely true, we would have won at least one of those games against the good defenses, in spite of the putrid defense. Illinois doesn't count, their defense was exposed by us and was more "good" than "great" overall, and were just overrated at the point at which we played them.

I don't mean to be an asshole (probably too late tho), but people on this blog need to stop with the affinity towards stats. 90% of them are made up. And the other 10% contains many ways for people to pick and choose what they want to argue. While it was encouraging to see teh offense move at will in the first half yesterday, ultimately their demise was a distinct inability to score points in the red zone. That is a major issue. It's a good offense, but you can't exactly call them world beaters quite yet...just too inconsistent this season.

I forgot the most important thing I wanted to say! Ultimately, we need to step back and look at the product. Stats are stats, each one means something but can only get you so far. You cannot cherry pick one and say with definitiveness what's "good" and "bad" about Michigan. You have to look at everything as a whole. And in general, if it doesn't pass the eyes test, then it's just not true (which it definitely doesn't...Michigan has looked much shakier on offense against the best defenses than the worse defenses, with the exception of Purdue but only because it was a rainy slopfest on real grass field)

Well, yeah, because you know, good defense are good at stopping good offenses. This is why it was broken down on an average and shown that over the course of the season, UMs offense has gained more yards and scored more points on the best defenses than they typically give up in a game. If UM can develop a good defense, this team could be sick.

If you're going to evaluate the offense in such a manner, you need to look at everything, not just yards. You need to look at points scored, turnovers, drops, average starting field position...etc. etc. etc. The stats from the OP show that yes, Michigan has the ability to move at will against any defense. But that doesn't mean they've done any better against the best defenses. What defines "better" anyway? The bottom line is the offense scored 7 points against a good defense, and while they looked good at times ultimately they failed when it matters the most.

And I think there is value in stepping back and actually evaluating the product on field in a subjective way rather than stats stats stats.

Am I insane in thinking that way? Apparently, judging by all the negs I'm getting, I must be.

I get it guys; you want Harbaugh. This is a perfectly understandable and reasonable desire, but insisting that the offense is not that good is just laughable. Furthermore, refusing to believe that youth has anything to do with turnovers and the lack of scoring is laughable. By all means, root for Harbaugh, but do it for the right reasons, and stop fooling yourselves.

Who said that? I didn't. I never said the offense sucked. But we have to be honest about the things we say here. And when someone posts ONE stat and says "our offense is better against good defenses than bad defense", well I'm sorry but it's just not true.

Has nothing to do with Harbaugh. In fact, I think (tentatively) RR deserves the 4th year, because the offense has made such great strides. But we have to be honest with ourselves in the evaluation of the offense too. They've struggled against good defenses.

This is completely fair, and this is something I understand. You are not one of the people with the sentiment, but there is definitely a sentiment that our offense is just not very good.

In Big Ten play:

Wisconsin avg ppg allowed: 20.5 UM: 28

Iowa avg ppg allowed: 16.4 UM: 28

OSU avg ppg allowed: 13.3 UM: 7

UM exceeded the first two by a good amount, and while we didn't touch the OSU average, anybody who watched that game knows we left a LOT of points on the board which were either attributed to a lack of any kicking game, or straight up flukey TO's.

I think it has something to do with your implied assertion that numbers and data aren't important and shouldn't be used. We should just rely on our guts to tell us how good the O is. This is how you are coming off to me, and it sounds outrageously ignorant. You're coming off sounding like : "I know you've got evidence and numbers and stuff, but my emotions tell me otherwise."

I guess I'm not saying it well then. I'm not implying stats are bad, and if I was then it was a misunderstanding. I'm just trying to say that they don't always tell the whole story. Especially looking at one or two in isolation.

And in regards to the second statement (about my emotions telling me otherwise), there's more to the evaluation of football than pure numbers...I don't think that's emotions. Maybe I'm wrong. I am certainly no expert at football though, so perhaps I should refrain from saying those types of things.

"My nomination for worst. post. ever." will get you negged everytime. Grow a pair and deal with it. If you think it's the worst post ever, fine. Don't whine about getting negged when you sound like an asshole, which you all but admitted you did.

Umm, no one said anything about Harbaugh, and no one said the offense wasn't that good. We said that the stats put forth by OP don't really prove anything meaningful. Apparently we can't take issue with silly stats without being irrational ZOMG RICH ROD SUCKS haters?

Yes, there is a decline and as you have touched on a bit turnovers, starting position, youth/inexperience, etc. are all factors that effect an offenses ability to score. This is why I chose to use yards for my initial analysis. As the team matures those yards will turn to more scoring. The team is at a point where they don't respond well to adversity. When they overcome that, they won't just be able to move the ball on anyone, they'll be scoring at will.

So essentially you were able to find a stat that shows that our offense didn't shit the bed against the best 5 teams we played this year. OK, congratulations I guess. I wish that translated into first half points.

This is honestly one of the most ridiculous posts I've ever seen on this blog. In games against "good" opponents (excluding Illinois, they are not good or even above-average) mIchigan has rounded up a grand total of 34 points in the first half against msu, iowa, psu, wisconsin, and ohio state. They accumulate yards when they are done by 3+ touchdowns (which they were in every one of these games at one point) and are forced to throw the ball in obvious passing situations. These useless statistics you posted mean absolutely nothing and if you think michigan has been better against good opponents we have not been watching the same team this year.

The point is that our offense is the football equivalent of the Jaguar. Looks great, hauls ass, lots of cool bells and whistles, but it breaks down way too much at the most inopportune times.

You either believe that another year under current management is going to work out the kinks in the system that causes it to break down (e.g. inexperience, bad luck, pressing to make up for the lack of a defense, pressing to make up for the lack of a kicking game, etc.), or you believe that our offense is inherently flawed and needs new management to fix it, or you believe it doesn't matter either way since RR is beyond redemption.

Regardless, these are statistically relevant data points that show the promise this offense has. They also directly point out that the offense isn't a BMW yet or it would be scoring on par with Oregon so clearly there are issues as well.

No need to be dicks and to call out the OP for good, relevant, data points. This board is looking more and more like Mlive by the day. A lot of people (maybe all of us) need to take a week or two off from this board and from Michigan football. I wonder what would happen if Brian just shut her down for a bit...

I would be interested to get a comparison of how many possessions we got for these games. I would imagine they are higher than against the bad teams since the OSU/Wisconsin/Iowas scored on us more. That and what everyone else said... points.

It's easy to be snarky about the difference between total offense (by yardage) and scoring offense. If (and how big of an "if" that is is up to you to decide) we can cut down on the turnovers and get a Division I-A placekicker, we'll get that fixed.

It's easy to be snarky about the difference between scoring offense and wins. If (and how big of an "if" that is is up to you to decide) we can fix the defense, we'll get that fixed too.

The idea that people shouldn't post anything that highlights anything positive about Michigan football, because we just lost badly to Ohio State, is sad. Just sad. I get that misery loves company, but geez.

Once the offense makes even less mistakes, (there has been less this year than the past two years though), and we get a top 25 defense, (yes top 25, no "at least mediocre", it has to be top 25), we will consistently get to BCS bowls.

Find a kicker and things will be a lot different. How many missed field goals did Michigan have this year? Nine and 2 missed XPs. How many times did they go for it on 4th down within field goal range, only to turn the ball over? The answer is quite a bit. How many touchbacks did Michigan have on a kickoff? Seven and 3 kickoffs went out of bounds. Those are sad stats that need vast improvement.

This is a simplistic and misleading analysis. How much of the game did the starters play against weak defenses? How much more aggressive was the playcalling against strong defenses than weak? How much more risky was the playcalling against strong defenses than weak? Is the spike of turnovers against stronger defenses a function of youth or injury or playcalling that exceeded the capabilities of the players?

Sorry, but this simply isn't true. Jeremy Jackson and Jeron Stokes played a lot because Hemmingway and Odoms were both out and we often play four receivers at a time. We also rotate WRs a lot. It's not some indication that RR pulls starters. You'll know the starters are pulled when the QB leaves the game and he's not hurt.